Qualitative analysis you can verify.

Frontier speed with analyst rigor. Every claim links to the responses that support it, and anything your data can’t support stays out of the report.

Coding replay, Organizational ethics study

One simulated response, with the 2 ideas our re-run of the method’s first step extracted from it highlighted and labelled. The same step then runs on more responses side by side. Then, as published with the study: all 823 responses in the study produced 246 codes grouped into 75 themes. The steps below list each stage.

In my experience, management loves throwing around fancy terms like 'ethical culture,' yet they fail miserably when it comes to making ethical guidelines accessible to us on the ground floor. The company's code of conduct might as well be written in ancient hieroglyphics for all its relevance and readability! It's buried deep within some obscure intranet site that no one knows about or cares to navigate through.

Ideas extracted from this response

  1. Management uses buzzwords like “ethical culture” but does not make ethical guidelines accessible to frontline staff.
  2. The company’s code of conduct is difficult to read and is hidden on an obscure intranet site that few people know about or use.

Response 1 of 823 · simulatedHighlights are the excerpts each idea came from

  1. Highlight and label2 ideas in one response
  2. A few more10 responses, side by side
  3. Every response823 responses
  4. Codes and themes246 codes, 75 themes
Simulated responses from a published study; the marks in the overview are illustrative. How this was made

We analyze interviews and open-ended survey responses at any scale. Every theme comes back linked to the responses it was built from, so your team can check the work.

Led by Andrew Katz, PhD

Book a scoping callSee how it works

You get answers where every sentence cites its sources.

Bring our team a question about your data and the answer comes back with each sentence linked to the responses behind it, with a count. A sentence the data doesn’t support is withdrawn rather than written. Here, a question about returning to the office, answered from 1,806 responses.

The question and its answer

What’s driving the pushback on returning to the office?

Asked of all 1,806 responses

Answer, drafted from the responses

Staff are organizing a petition… Withdrawn. No response mentions a petition, a union, a protest or organizing together (0 of 1,806), so it isn’t in the answer.

All 1,806 responses

1,028 mention this

Each response in the study, lit up behind the sentence it supports.

The cumulative expense of daily fuel, transit fares, and mandatory parking fees effectively erodes the salary increase I anticipated from this role transition.marketing coordinator, under a year
Now, I will be spending an extra ninety minutes every day stuck in traffic or waiting for transit.operations supervisor, under a year

 

Select any sentence to light up the responses behind it.

Illustration: Return to the office, 1,806 simulated responses, none written by a real person. Every quote shown was read and confirmed.

Frequency is not importance.

You get the rare, serious reports brought forward, not buried under the common ones. In 2,001 responses, our review found 56 that report intimidation, a safety hazard or a denied accommodation. Ranked by how often, they come last; ranked by how serious, they come first.

Ranked by how often

  6. 6–3227 more everyday topics57–58 each

Ranked by how serious

  10. 10–3627 more everyday topics57–58 each
  6. 10–3627 more everyday topics57–58 each

Intimidation by a manager

Level 4, high 16 of 2,001 responses (0.8%)

Rubric, level 4: A credible report of harassment or intimidation, a physical safety hazard, or a denied disability accommodation. Escalate promptly through the right channel.

I am reluctant to return on schedule because I feel compelled to avoid my manager’s office to prevent further belittling remarks.
HR generalist, under a year

Reason: Repeated belittling by a manager, leading them to avoid the manager's office: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).

I am very anxious about returning to the office because my direct supervisor uses intimidating language and frequently makes me feel unsafe through unpredictable outbursts.
data analyst, under a year

Reason: A supervisor's intimidating language and unpredictable outbursts: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).

All 16 reasons
  1. qs-0154 Repeated belittling by a supervisor in front of others, so they avoid all contact: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  2. qs-0176 A manager's belittling comments and subtle threats about their future at the company: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  3. qs-0183 A manager's constant belittling and threats about their job: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  4. qs-0236 A manager whose intimidating, belittling behaviour makes them anxious to share a room: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  5. qs-0439 Repeated belittling and consistent intimidation by leadership: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  6. qs-0571 A manager's persistent intimidation and belittling: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  7. qs-0920 A manager's constant belittling and threats about job security: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  8. qs-1059 Repeated belittling by a manager, leading them to avoid the manager's office: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  9. qs-1060 A manager's frequent undermining comments, leaving them feeling intimidated: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  10. qs-1119 Belittling comments and veiled threats about job security: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  11. qs-1173 Persistent intimidation by their direct manager, with a request for HR to act: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  12. qs-1200 Belittling comments and vague threats from a supervisor: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  13. qs-1214 A supervisor's intimidating language and unpredictable outbursts: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  14. qs-1355 Persistent intimidation and belittlement by a supervisor: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  15. qs-1492 A supervisor who uses their job security as a threat: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).
  16. qs-1637 A manager whose conduct has made the office hostile and intimidating: meets level 4 (credible report of intimidation).

Select a topic to read the responses and the reason for its level.

Select a topic to read the responses behind it.

Illustration on 2,001 simulated responses, none written by a real person. Every level comes from reading the response against a severity rubric written before the data existed, and each shows its reason.

Counting mentions would have missed this.

You get analysis that reads for what each person is saying, not a tally of the words they use. A keyword count says the commute held steady; reading each response’s main point says otherwise.

Between two quarters: hybrid schedule changed from 3 to 2 required office days per week.

Responses that mention commute time

Before167After158

A keyword dashboard: 167 → 158. Flat.

Responses whose main point is time lost to commuting

Before30After15

Read for the main point: 30 → 15. A possible change: worth watching, not confirmed at 500 responses a quarter.

Before
I’ve found myself dreading the mandatory in-office days more than I expected, mainly because of the sheer amount of time slipping out of my day just traveling back and forth.

project manager, about 3 years

After
The transition back to the office has been logistically challenging, as the commute now consumes a significant portion of my working day that was previously dedicated to productive tasks.

data analyst, under a year

Illustration on simulated responses: four quarterly waves of 500, none written by a real person. How we count and test.

What we deliver

Three kinds of analysis, each returned with the responses behind every finding and a plain account of how it was made.

  • Inductive Coding

    Extract-based thematic analysis that maintains qualitative nuance while providing quantitative insight.

    Used for

    • Large-scale feedback analysis
    • Customer experience research
    • Program evaluation
    • Policy impact assessment

  • Decision Network Analysis

    Map and analyze complex decision-making patterns to understand how choices are made and influenced.

    Used for

    • Customer journey mapping
    • User experience optimization
    • Investment decision modeling
    • Product adoption analysis

  • Causal Belief Networks

    Understand how people think about cause and effect in complex systems.

    Used for

    • Educational outcome analysis
    • Healthcare intervention planning
    • Risk perception modeling
    • Behavioral change research

All services and engagement options

Start with the question your data has to answer.

Tell us what you have and the decision it needs to inform. On a scoping call we’ll say what an analysis can and can’t answer before any work starts.

Book a scoping call

Just have a quick question?

Or email [email protected]

We reply by email.